TPE to Withdraw Class 397s?

[DanNCL]

I suspect the people who have to deliver the service at TPE would like to get rid of both the the 397 and Mk5s and replace them with 802s. but the reality is the money has been spent and the units delivered. They may be less than perfect, but they are stuck with them. There is another thread on micro-fleets, which discusses some of the issues. Common sense tells you one standardised fleet of units (i.e. 802s) would be much easier to manage going forwards, and probably have a lower lifetime costs, even if there are teething troubles with the 802s. 3 different new units = potentially 3x teething troubles. Thats what you get when you throw common sense out the window and give accountants and managers who probably have a lot of letters after their name but no real world experience free rein. 802s were always going to be the best fit for TPE, 125mph units and bi-mode. Can be used on all routes, and can take advantage of extentions to electrification even if a complete route isnt electrified.

Quite the opposite, I'm sure many of those who have to deliver the service at TPE would like to see rid of the 802s. The 397s consistently have much better availability rates than the 802s, have settled down into some resemblence of reliability (unlike the 802s and the Mark 5s which both frequently fail to achieve 50% availability), and have a standard class interior layout that is popular with the travelling public (also unlike the 802s and Mark 5s). The issues with the 802s have gone on for too long for them to reasonably be considered teething troubles. Throw in the issue of cracks discovered in the Spring, which it has recently emerged there may never be any fix available for them other than to replace the bodyshells, the 802s will likely be seen as the worst choice of the 3 Nova fleets going forward.

The availability issue with the 802s isn't unique to TPE, both GWR and LNER have also had availability issues ever since the 80x fleets took over the bulk of services. For LNER, if the 80xs were achieving contracted availability rates they wouldn't actually have had any need to use any Mark 4 sets until the May 2023 timetable change, but instead they've found themselves using three Mark 4 sets a day, on the reduced Covid timetable, as well as short formed diagrams.

From a passenger perspective very few people seem to prefer the 802s over the 185s. Between York and Manchester they're both louder and less comfortable than the 185s, and the poor reliability of them combined with TPE's recent decision to pick cancelleations over 185 substitutions on the Newcastle route means that those especially at Chester-le-Street (as TPE provide all of the off peak daytime services there), but also to a lesser extent also at Durham, Darlington and Northallerton, generally prefered the 185s as although you'd normally have to stand on them there was a higher chance of the train turning up.

Just an off the wall thought, could class 88s be used with Mk5s to deliver the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttle? This is the speculative ideas thread after all. This would free up 802s for core services.

In theory yes as both are route cleared and there are enough 88s spare, although some of the 88s have had the ETS connectors removed in order to keep the 68s fit for passenger service, so wouldn't be an option in the short term. The 88s would also need to be fitted with the "CAF Control" multiple working system used by the Mark 5 driving trailers.

Not really a great idea to use 100mph stock on a route with 125mph trains and 125mph stock on routes with much lower speeds (although I concede that the route north of Newcastle is slower than that).

As you say, most of the route North of Newcastle is slower than 125mph. Not enough of the route north of Newcastle is 125mph to make any meaningful difference to journey times as opposed to running at 100mph max.

I have wondered whether there might have been scope to procure 12 x 801 units rather than 12 x 397 units, in addition to the 19 x 802 units, but leaving the services run by the Mk5a units to remain as 185s?

Two reasons why that couldn't have happened. The first is that the 350s had to transfer away in early 2020 regardless of what was replacing them, so there wouldn't have been time to wait for any 801s/803s/derivatives to be delivered from Hitachi, the second is that at the time this was specced half of the 185s were expected to be transferred away, so keeping those on the Mark 5 routes wouldn't have been an option either had things turned out as was expected when the franchise began in 2016.

However, the 397s look like a great train - nobody seems to be complaining about them. If there is an issue about reducing the type of fleet, can’t the Mk5a units not be transferred up to Scotland for the sleeper services and then TPE concentrate the 802s on the trans pennine routes?

Mark 5As are fixed formation 5 car push pull sets, effectively unpowered multiple units, and not compatible with the sleeper Mark 5s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If TPE have any commonsense they’ll get some crews trained up to allow the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttles to use 397s when required to minimise cancelled services.

I'm not sure the power supply is up to supporting more electric services until the upgrade is ready in a couple of years.
The 802s are likely to be on diesel in Scotland until then.

 

[irish_rail]

Quite the opposite, I'm sure many of those who have to deliver the service at TPE would like to see rid of the 802s. The 397s consistently have much better availability rates than the 802s, have settled down into some resemblence of reliability (unlike the 802s and the Mark 5s which both frequently fail to achieve 50% availability), and have a standard class interior layout that is popular with the travelling public (also unlike the 802s and Mark 5s). The issues with the 802s have gone on for too long for them to reasonably be considered teething troubles. Throw in the issue of cracks discovered in the Spring, which it has recently emerged there may never be any fix available for them other than to replace the bodyshells, the 802s will likely be seen as the worst choice of the 3 Nova fleets going forward.

The availability issue with the 802s isn't unique to TPE, both GWR and LNER have also had availability issues ever since the 80x fleets took over the bulk of services. For LNER, if the 80xs were achieving contracted availability rates they wouldn't actually have had any need to use any Mark 4 sets until the May 2023 timetable change, but instead they've found themselves using three Mark 4 sets a day, on the reduced Covid timetable, as well as short formed diagrams.

From a passenger perspective very few people seem to prefer the 802s over the 185s. Between York and Manchester they're both louder and less comfortable than the 185s, and the poor reliability of them combined with TPE's recent decision to pick cancelleations over 185 substitutions on the Newcastle route means that those especially at Chester-le-Street (as TPE provide all of the off peak daytime services there), but also to a lesser extent also at Durham, Darlington and Northallerton, generally prefered the 185s as although you'd normally have to stand on them there was a higher chance of the train turning up.


In theory yes as both are route cleared and there are enough 88s spare, although some of the 88s have had the ETS connectors removed in order to keep the 68s fit for passenger service, so wouldn't be an option in the short term. The 88s would also need to be fitted with the "CAF Control" multiple working system used by the Mark 5 driving trailers.


As you say, most of the route North of Newcastle is slower than 125mph. Not enough of the route north of Newcastle is 125mph to make any meaningful difference to journey times as opposed to running at 100mph max.


Two reasons why that couldn't have happened. The first is that the 350s had to transfer away in early 2020 regardless of what was replacing them, so there wouldn't have been time to wait for any 801s/803s/derivatives to be delivered from Hitachi, the second is that at the time this was specced half of the 185s were expected to be transferred away, so keeping those on the Mark 5 routes wouldn't have been an option either had things turned out as was expected when the franchise began in 2016.


Mark 5As are fixed formation 5 car push pull sets, effectively unpowered multiple units, and not compatible with the sleeper Mark 5s.

I feel I have to take you to task on one point, that 185s are more popular with passengers than 802s????
Really?! I find that extremely surprising, having sampled both in TPE land the 802s win hands down, partly because the 185s are inevitably overcrowded and there are always people standing by the doors giving a rather less relaxed feel than the saloon of the intercity 802.

 

[DanNCL]

I'm not sure the power supply is up to supporting more electric services until the upgrade is ready in a couple of years.
The 802s are likely to be on diesel in Scotland until then.

I think the issue is more specifically that the power supply can't handle three power thirsty 80xs an hour, rather than three electrics per hour, as LNER and predecessors used to operate three 91s in the space of an hour there for parts of the day on Sundays without issues. I'm not sure what the power consumption of a 397 is vs an 802 on electric, if a 397 isn't as power thirsty as an 802 then it could possibly work.

I feel I have to take you to task on one point, that 185s are more popular with passengers than 802s????
Really?! I find that extremely surprising, having sampled both in TPE land the 802s win hands down, partly because the 185s are inevitably overcrowded and there are always people standing by the doors giving a rather less relaxed feel than the saloon of the intercity 802.

With my Chester-le-Street example (which I admit is by far the most extreme of them), the 185s were massively preferred because it was more likely to turn up. The 802s weren't so bad when unavailable units were substituted with 185s, but since TPE have switched to preferring cancellations North of York when 802s are unavailable it's become much more of an issue.

It's strange, as us Chester-le-Street folk all hated the 185s when we had them, now they're gone we want them back!

 

[_toommm_]

It's strange, as us Chester-le-Street folk all hated the 185s when we had them, now they're gone we want them back!

Are 185s even allowed north of Darlington now? I swear I read on here that Network Rail don't allow them anymore...

 

[DanNCL]

Are 185s even allowed north of Darlington now? I swear I read on here that Network Rail don't allow them anymore...

North of Newcastle is where they’re now banned. Still permitted Darlington - Newcastle.

 

[_toommm_]

North of Newcastle is where they’re now banned. Still permitted Darlington - Newcastle.

That's the one, thanks.

I noticed it was always 185s on the services that terminate at Darlington in the day, and 802s north of that. I put two and two together and got five in this case.

 

[LittleAH]

If TPE have any commonsense they’ll get some crews trained up to allow the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttles to use 397s when required to minimise cancelled services.

And just how will that work?

Already there are power issues on the ECML. Newcastle crews don't sign, nor ever will sign 397s as they are WCML rolling stock.

 

[mike57]

North of Newcastle is where they’re now banned. Still permitted Darlington - Newcastle.

Why are they (185s) banned? Have they ever been allowed?

 

[_toommm_]

Why are they (185s) banned? Have they ever been allowed?

They were used for a while on training runs between Newcastle and Edinburgh. I believe the ban is due to them only being 100mph units on a two-track 125mph railway.

 

[DanNCL]

And just how will that work?

I recommend you re-read my post that you quoted as I answered that question, but I will quote it again for you:

If TPE have any commonsense they’ll get some crews trained up to allow the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttles to use 397s when required to minimise cancelled services.

It would probably be worth me mentioning that the Scottish crews that work some of the Newcastle - Edinburgh workings do already sign 397s.

Already there are power issues on the ECML. Newcastle crews don't sign, nor ever will sign 397s as they are WCML rolling stock.

I touched on the power issues an in earlier post too. As for ECML crews never signing the 397s as they’re WCML stock, the same was said a year ago about the 802s on the WCML, yet here we are with WCML crews being trained on them. Circumstances change, as TPE should already be well aware.

Why are they (185s) banned? Have they ever been allowed?

They were used for a while on training runs between Newcastle and Edinburgh. I believe the ban is due to them only being 100mph units on a two-track 125mph railway.

They were also used pre-2018 during WCML closures to maintain a direct Manchester - Scotland service. I remember taking one between Newcastle and Edinburgh in 2017, there was barely any time difference between that non stop and any of the then-standard ECML fleet not stop, it was actually quite a pleasant journey.

 

[mike57]

They were used for a while on training runs between Newcastle and Edinburgh. I believe the ban is due to them only being 100mph units on a two-track 125mph railway.

Looking at Openrailwaymap.org not much of Newcastle - Edinburgh is 125mph, and there is a lot of less than 100mph, cant see that it would make much difference time wise, or that they would 'get in the way'. The 185s have good accelaration so as long as some common sense is applied to pathing I couldnt see it being a problem.

 

[greyman42]

Looking at Openrailwaymap.org not much of Newcastle - Edinburgh is 125mph, and there is a lot of less than 100mph, cant see that it would make much difference time wise, or that they would 'get in the way'. The 185s have good accelaration so as long as some common sense is applied to pathing I couldnt see it being a problem.

I can't see it being anything to do with track speed so i would be interested to know why they are banned. Perhaps someone could help?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can't see it being anything to do with track speed so i would be interested to know why they are banned. Perhaps someone could help?

I think the word "banned" has been used as a short-hand for "heavily discouraged for operational reasons" in this instance.

 

[greyman42]

I think the word "banned" has been used as a short-hand for "heavily discouraged for operational reasons" in this instance.

Does anyone know what the "operational reasons" are?

 

[Fokx]

Does anyone know what the "operational reasons" are?

They can’t keep up with the timetable and therefore causes delays to other services following behind by other operators

 

[paul1609]

They can’t keep up with the timetable and therefore causes delays to other services following behind by other operators

I'd be surprised if that's true. I was on a heavily delayed railtour hauled by a Class 90 and 100 mph mk1 stock from Miller Hill Yard Edinburgh down to King's Cross. We were surprised to be put out 5 mins in front of an Aberdeen originating HST. However it proved to be the correct decision as we 13 mins ahead by Newcastle and it never actually caught us untill we were on the slow lines for a set down at Potters Bar. I don't think the 100 /125 difference actually makes very much different North of Darlington and the 185s aren't exactly short of installed power.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

They were also used pre-2018 during WCML closures to maintain a direct Manchester - Scotland service. I remember taking one between Newcastle and Edinburgh in 2017, there was barely any time difference between that non stop and any of the then-standard ECML fleet not stop, it was actually quite a pleasant journey.

Yes, I recall that happening.

 

[D6975]

Does anyone know what the "operational reasons" are?

I'd hazard a guess that they don't want a unit ending up in a place where very few (if any) drivers sign them.

 

[LittleAH]

I touched on the power issues an in earlier post too. As for ECML crews never signing the 397s as they’re WCML stock, the same was said a year ago about the 802s on the WCML, yet here we are with WCML crews being trained on them. Circumstances change, as TPE should already be well aware.

They do change. Let's look at why 802s are now going to be on the WCML. 397s can be unreliable, TPE need to circulate units through Craigentinny and with a significant route upgrade about to take place this decade, having the ability to run via the WCML helps with any issues getting units to locations for regular maintenance.

But given 397s are maintained in Manchester by Alstom, having them run to Newcastle is operationally pointless. Not to mentioned the training required. And Carstairs remodelling.

Looking at Openrailwaymap.org not much of Newcastle - Edinburgh is 125mph, and there is a lot of less than 100mph, cant see that it would make much difference time wise, or that they would 'get in the way'. The 185s have good accelaration so as long as some common sense is applied to pathing I couldnt see it being a problem.

The problem is York - Newcaslte. 185s very rarely used nowadays north of Northallerton and 15 about to go off lease, although expected to be kept on.

 

[DanNCL]

They do change. Let's look at why 802s are now going to be on the WCML. 397s can be unreliable, TPE need to circulate units through Craigentinny and with a significant route upgrade about to take place this decade, having the ability to run via the WCML helps with any issues getting units to locations for regular maintenance.

But given 397s are maintained in Manchester by Alstom, having them run to Newcastle is operationally pointless. Not to mentioned the training required. And Carstairs remodelling.

397s can be unreliable indeed, but not to the same extent as the 802s, at least the 397s are routinely achieving more than 50% availability which most certainly can't be said for the 802s. When the 802s are reliably able to cover all 7 diagrams on the Liverpool-Newcastle route, as well as the Newcastle-Edinburgh shuttles and the upcoming WCML diagram, then reliability would be a valid argument against having the provision to use 397s on the Newcastle-Edinburgh shuttles available.

It may well be inconvenient operationally, but it's not pointless when it enables services for the public to continue running. To use the Chester-le-Street example again, just one 802 missing from service will often create a 4 hour gap between services - this is completely unacceptable. Having the option to use 397s between Newcastle and Edinburgh would heavily reduce the number of occasions where 802s are missing from the Newcastle-Liverpool route as the 802 removed from the shuttle would be available for the Newcastle-Liverpool route.

The problem is York - Newcaslte. 185s very rarely used nowadays north of Northallerton and 15 about to go off lease, although expected to be kept on.

It's only York - Darlington that's 125mph, and 185s still have booked work over all of that anyway as at least one of the Redcar services runs via Darlington. I have looked at the timings of the Newcastle-Liverpool services and noticed that they are far enough ahead of anything else that it's not going to be a huge issue if a 185 were to be allocated to the service and lose a few minutes between Darlington and York.

 

[Purple Orange]

Is the unreliability of 802s just a TPE issue or do the other TOCs face that problem too? On either account, why?

 

[DanNCL]

Is the unreliability of 802s just a TPE issue or do the other TOCs face that problem too? On either account, why?

All 80x operators have availability issues, although not to the same extent as what TPE appear to have. The cracks haven’t helped as now the units all have to have additional checks each day before being released into traffic. Edge Hill closing during the day also doesn’t help as it means any unit there that isn’t ready to leave the depot before 8am is out of action for the entire day, even if it could have been made ready for later in they day otherwise.